Ashok Hariharan wrote:
> i can agree with the argument if its just about improving the lot of the
> producers & their employees (which by itself is not a bad
> thing). agree that there is an employment potential involved in rural
> marketing, distribution, retailing etc....but this bottom of the
> pyramid thing doesnt talk about other impacts: people getting into debt,
> pollution, requirement for other social institutions
> (banks,education, saving plans), etc...
Well yes - but development has to take place somewhere or the other
The economy is basically agrarian in most villages - so heavily
dependent on the season. Having people become door to door salesmen for
consumer goods probably does boost the economy a bit by injecting more
cash into the economy, and encouraging a bit more spending .. of course
on stuff thats completely non-essential, not related to food / clothing
/ shelter. But that's the basic difference between a subsistence
economy and one that tries to rise a bit above it.
Of course there has to be real money in circulation for that, and people
should be paying more attention to microbanking schemes like Grameen
Bank (www.grameen-info.org) where poor villagers can make deposits or
withdrawals that are a pittance, that regular banks (or even "district
cooperative" banks (sort of like credit unions) wouldnt want to deal in
at all.
> i see millions of dollars being spent on development training programs for
> poor people and for people living in rural areas,
> (the only benefit being the attendees get free lunch ) Havent seen one
> which talks about educating the people at the top
> of the pyramid on the problems of 'over' development....
Ah, the NGO variety of development. One endless gravy train for a whole
lot of people.
srs
